DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:49 am**

While a lot of one's character is judged by their actions, it doesnt mean that character is not more important. The more I've thought about it, it is much better overall if you judge by character and actions, with character foremost.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:19 pm**

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:
FlyingPiggy wrote:And another thing, he splits his time between Pixar and Disney. That must be a little annoying for the workers at both places, to have the overlord who must okay what you're working on gone half the time. But then I guess he'd have to give up his control over the parks and he looves his control over the parks
He was a Cast Member was Disneyland and has always professed his love of the parks so I imagine he would hate to give up his creative control of them. Why is that a problem? After the success of Car Land at Disney's California Adventure and the upturn in fortunes it has brought to that park, why would anyone want him to give up that control? I haven't heard any complaints about how Lasseter splits his time between the different departments he oversees, if you have have please correct me.

agree to disagree about the soundtrack, but the real point is that he forced Newman on the project. Ron and John, the respected directors he brought back, wanted Alan.

Yeah, that's *exactly* my point. He loves the parks. He cares more about the parks then he does about Disney animation. But he likely wouldn't get to keep that control if he wasn't head of Disney animation.

No artist have given an interview about it or anything (they might , but there's been rumblings about it on animation sites for years. He has to sign off on every decision (I think...), every shot of animation (for sure) before the artist can be done with it. And he's gone over half the time. That's got to be annoying.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:37 pm**

I'm surprised to see so little love for The Princess and the Frog in this topic. I thought it was a wonderful film and it was just criminal that it didn't do a bit better. But even if it disappointed in theaters, I thought the DVD/Blu ray actually sold very well. I know it moved over 2 million in its first week and last I checked it had sold over 4 million DVD copies. That''s actually a very good number when compared to your average blockbuster.

I don't think Disney should be so quick to abandon animated features just yet if that is indeed what they are doing. I have nothing against CGI but animation is just a lot less sterile, warm, and inviting for me.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:54 pm**

FlyingPiggy wrote:No artist have given an interview about it or anything (they might , but there's been rumblings about it on animation sites for years. He has to sign off on every decision (I think...), every shot of animation (for sure) before the artist can be done with it. And he's gone over half the time. That's got to be annoying.

Have you seen the approval process? It looks pretty painless to me. He approves shots and gives notes via his ipad, so he can do it anywhere he has an internet connection. Seems pretty painless to me.

http://youtu.be/m5HN3-l_f-U?t=6m4s

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:36 pm**

Saturius2000 wrote:I'm surprised to see so little love for The Princess and the Frog in this topic. I thought it was a wonderful film and it was just criminal that it didn't do a bit better. But even if it disappointed in theaters, I thought the DVD/Blu ray actually sold very well. I know it moved over 2 million in its first week and last I checked it had sold over 4 million DVD copies. That''s actually a very good number when compared to your average blockbuster.

I don't think Disney should be so quick to abandon animated features just yet if that is indeed what they are doing. I have nothing against CGI but animation is just a lot less sterile, warm, and inviting for me.

Yeah, I love the movie myself, but it still didnt quite soar.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:47 pm**

I don't actually get the complaints that The Princess and the Frog failed because it was too safe or too traditional. I thought it was unique for a Disney animated movie in that it tried to deconstruct fairy tales and also gently mock 'princess culture' (which the company helped propagate). I don't even consider it a fairy tale movie, if I were to compare it to another Disney movie, it would be to Enchanted and not to any of Disney's 90s films which it is often accused of trying to mimic. Perhaps Disney made a mistake in marketing it as a traditional fairy tale when it really wasn't.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:10 pm**

Yeah, I too loved The Princess and the Frog in how it actually slightly played with the formula by having the lead be an actual employee as well as putting a slightly more realistic bent on the "Wish Upon a Star" concept. Also, Lasseter's choice of Randy Newman was based on not only him working for Pixar (whose not the only animation studio Newman has worked for, as he also composed songs for Cats Don't Dance and James & the Giant Peach sans Lasseter's influences) since he actually lived for many years in New Orleans and could bring the right feel to the project.

As I said in the Wreck-It Ralph thread, I'm not quite sure why Disney considers The Princess and the Frog such a major disappointment (aside from it not making as much as they expected). It was actually a lot more profitable than the three CG Disney animated films that came before it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:45 pm**

estefan wrote:Yeah, I too loved The Princess and the Frog in how it actually slightly played with the formula by having the lead be an actual employee as well as putting a slightly more realistic bent on the "Wish Upon a Star" concept. Also, Lasseter's choice of Randy Newman was based on not only him working for Pixar (whose not the only animation studio Newman has worked for, as he also composed songs for Cats Don't Dance and James & the Giant Peach sans Lasseter's influences) since he actually lived for many years in New Orleans and could bring the right feel to the project.

As I said in the Wreck-It Ralph thread, I'm not quite sure why Disney considers The Princess and the Frog such a major disappointment (aside from it not making as much as they expected). It was actually a lot more profitable than the three CG Disney animated films that came before it.

I believe that they are comparing its earnings not necessarily to their own films, but to other CG films. Take the Ice Age sequels who receive mediocre reviews yet make obscene amounts of cash. Or Shrek or Kung Fu Panda or Toy Story 3.

Posted: **Wed Oct 17, 2012 10:48 pm**

qindarka wrote:I don't actually get the complaints that The Princess and the Frog failed because it was too safe or too traditional. I thought it was unique for a Disney animated movie in that it tried to deconstruct fairy tales and also gently mock 'princess culture' (which the company helped propagate). I don't even consider it a fairy tale movie, if I were to compare it to another Disney movie, it would be to Enchanted and not to any of Disney's 90s films which it is often accused of trying to mimic. Perhaps Disney made a mistake in marketing it as a traditional fairy tale when it really wasn't.

aside from those things, it actually does seem a little safe and traditional. Tangled also suffered a bit from that.

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:13 pm**

Here are Floyd Norman's thoughts on the lack of hand-drawn animation at Disney.

Floyd Norman wrote:Disney animation is looking good once again and the future looks promising. Promising, that is except for one thing. Whatever happened to the commitment to Disney's legacy animation? You know. The hand drawn variety. And, don't give me the old line the public wants CG films only. The public really hasn't had a traditional animated film since “The Princess and the Frog.” How many years has that been? And, honestly, is a hand drawn animated film that much of a risk? The Walt Disney Company is hardly a struggling start up with everything riding on the success or failure of one motion picture.

While I applaud brilliant innovation such as Disney's “Paperman,” you can't tell me that drawing on paper is a more expensive proposition than a CGI production pipeline. I've produced films, so I know production costs and what's required to create a film. I can't believe that Disney considers drawing on paper some kind of an economic risk. I can't believe that a small staff of real animators is going to drastically set the company back. And, yes. I did say, “real animators.” With all due respect to my talented CGI colleagues, I can only say this. Try starting your scene with a blank sheet of paper.

This is hardly a rant against CGI animation because I'm delighted with the recent work coming out of Disney. “Tangled” was awesome and the recent “Wreak it Ralph” shows Disney can stand toe to toe with their Northern California colleagues. What truly bums me out is the recent departures of incredible talents like Andreas Deja and Glen Keane. That's like Apple letting designer, Jonny Ive walk out the door. The late Steve Jobs would call a decision like that incredibly stupid. And of course, Steve would be right.

Source: http://mrfun.squarespace.com/blog/2012/ ... edium.html

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:33 pm**

Sotiris wrote:Here are Floyd Norman's thoughts on the lack of hand-drawn animation at Disney.

That person has a point, you know.

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:57 pm**

TsWade2 wrote:
Sotiris wrote:Here are Floyd Norman's thoughts on the lack of hand-drawn animation at Disney.
Source: http://mrfun.squarespace.com/blog/2012/ ... edium.html
That person has a point, you know.

That is exactly what I've been trying to say! Unless I was just using the wrong words...

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:50 am**

TsWade2 wrote:That person has a point, you know.

Wow, way to be disrespectful. "That person" is a Disney Legend, going back to the days of Sleeping Beauty.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what Norman says, except for the "real animators" comment. CG animators work very hard and have done some stunning character and background animation over the years. A lot of animators for computer animated films have probably done hand-drawn work in the past, too, before even putting their hands on a mouse.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:07 am**

Yeah, Floyd's always been overly negative towards CG animation. While I understand the point he's trying to make, you can't say "no disrespect to CG animators" and "CG animators aren't real animators" in the same sentence. While he should be worried about using his talent and exptertise to push the medium and develop young talent, he'd usually rather be the old curmudgeon going "back in MY day..."

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:52 am**

SWillie! wrote:Yeah, Floyd's always been overly negative towards CG animation. While I understand the point he's trying to make, you can't say "no disrespect to CG animators" and "CG animators aren't real animators" in the same sentence. While he should be worried about using his talent and exptertise to push the medium and develop young talent, he'd usually rather be the old curmudgeon going "back in MY day..."

I don't agree. I've read before, and I agree, that there's something more interesting about thinking of animators who draw their own work rather than sitting at computers. Work is work, of course, but there is a difference to me.

But then again, even stop-motion is technically considered "animation." I do think of hand-drawing animators differently, so I understand what he means anyway.

Moreover, I agree with his statement that creating a hand-drawn film is hardly a risk for Disney. Particularly since TP&TF made back its production costs. So I don't really get why they decided to abandon the schedule they had originally, with 2 CG films, followed by 1 hand-drawn, etc. I would say releasing a hand-drawn film was more of a risk before Tangled/Wreck-It Ralph than after them; the Disney image in general has improved among audiences, though I'm not sure if they're on the same level they were in the '90s yet.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:27 am**

No need to put the quotations marks when referring to stop-motion as animation. It IS animation. Moving clay or puppet models frame-by-frame takes just as much skill and patience as drawing a moving image. You can even look closely at Wallace & Gromit and see the hard work and animators' very fingerprints right on their faces.

It's also worth noting that every single computer-generated character starts life as a hand-done drawing. Pick up one of those "Art of" books by DreamWorks or Pixar and you'll see the lovely and incredible concept art and backgrounds designed with pencil and paper. I even think one of the job requirements to be an animator at Pixar and Disney is to know how to draw. Most animation schools, including the big ones like CalArts and Seneca, even teach classes on how to do hand-drawn animation. So it seems strange for Floyd Norman to suggest that CG animators have not done hand-drawn animation or put pencil to paper.

Norman has even worked on a couple of CG-animated films, like Dinosaur and Monsters Inc. And doesn't he work on the Annoying Orange show? Isn't the animation on that show just still photographs of fruits with real mouths projected on them? Seems odd for him to berate animators for not animating on paper, when he works on a show that uses the laziest form of "animation."

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:34 am**

estefan wrote:No need to put the quotations marks when referring to stop-motion as animation. It IS animation.

Which is exactly what I said--stop-motion is considered "animation."

Norman has even worked on a couple of CG-animated films, like Dinosaur and Monsters Inc. ... Seems odd for him to berate animators for not animating on paper, when he works on a show that uses the laziest form of "animation."

He didn't berate animators for "not animating on paper"--he was berating Disney for not giving hand-drawn animators anything to do.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:42 pm**

I don't think Floyd wanted to put down CG animators. Despite the unfortunate choice of words, he probably meant 2D animators as hand-drawn animation has been deeply associated with Disney all of these decades. Besides, that's not even the point of his article.

estefan wrote:It's also worth noting that every single computer-generated character starts life as a hand-done drawing. Pick up one of those "Art of" books by DreamWorks or Pixar and you'll see the lovely and incredible concept art and backgrounds designed with pencil and paper.

That's irrelevant. Pre-production artwork exists in various fields and industries and not just in animation.

estefan wrote:I even think one of the job requirements to be an animator at Pixar and Disney is to know how to draw.

No, it's not. It's a plus but definitely not a requirement.

estefan wrote:Most animation schools, including the big ones like CalArts and Seneca, even teach classes on how to do hand-drawn animation. So it seems strange for Floyd Norman to suggest that CG animators have not done hand-drawn animation or put pencil to paper.

Students can take CG animation classes exclusively if they wish. 2D animation classes are not required.

estefan wrote:Norman has even worked on a couple of CG-animated films, like Dinosaur and Monsters Inc.

He also worked on Toy Story 2, the cancelled Wild Life, and the upcoming Turkeys.

estefan wrote:And doesn't he work on the Annoying Orange show? Isn't the animation on that show just still photographs of fruits with real mouths projected on them? Seems odd for him to berate animators for not animating on paper, when he works on a show that uses the laziest form of "animation."

Floyd is working as a storyboard artist and not as an animator. Just because he works on it doesn't mean he considers it an animated show.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:47 pm**

Yes, but he made it clear he only considers hand-drawn animation "real animation". Yes, there is absolutely a difference - there are hand drawn animators, there are CG animators, there are stop motion animators, there are experimental animators... but not a single one of them is more "real" than the next. And for a veteran of animation to say they are is incredibly disrespectful to the other artforms. Saying that hand-drawn animators are "real animators" implies that CG artists and all those other types are animators are NOT "real animators".

I understand that he's knocking Disney here, and not the animators. His points about hand drawn production not being a "risk" is right on the money. Like I said, I understand what he MEANS, but his way of going about it was completely disrespectful.

Whether it was simply an "unfortunate choice of words" or not, he said it, and it wasn't something a veteran of the animation industry should say.

Posted: **Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:05 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote:the Disney image in general has improved among audiences, though I'm not sure if they're on the same level they were in the '90s yet.

Not even close, and I doubt they'll ever will be simply because they don't have the monopoly and power on the animated feature business they used to. Pixar (or Disney/Pixar) is probably still the #1 brand for new animated movies, even with Cars 2.

DVDizzy Forum

Hand-Drawn Animation Dead at Disney